Piracy in the Go industry.

[Bill Spight]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

If I build a house, my children can live in it, pass it to their children, and on forever. Unless it is sold, my descendants will retain the exclusive right to its use for eternity. With few exceptions (including Mark Twain, I believe), no one thinks that intellectual property should work that way.

Not everybody thinks that land should work that way, either.

[FlyingAxe]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

It is different because it is not scarce.

You can ask: what is the point of property anyway? Why is it moral for me to restrict someone from using my property? The answer is that we desire to live in a non-violent society and minimize the amount of conflict. That is the goal of the law. That is why it makes sense to assign property rights -- to figure out whose claim on a piece of property is better, so that if a conflict arises, we can clearly see who the "winner" is.

This makes sense to do for scarce objects. For non-scarce objects, however, there is no conflict of use -- if you use my idea, it in no way precludes me from using it. So, what's the justification for me to prevent you from using it? (Especially since what I am doing is preventing you from using your physical objects, on which the idea is stored.)

The argument about sales, etc., is irrelevant, because you don't own potential future sales. Even if your sales drop as a result of my use of your idea, I did not steal anything that you owned.


The other problem is that ideas are simply properties of physical objects. They never exist without physical objects "holding them". To sell a book without selling information contained within is like to sell a rose without selling its red color, its smell, the softness of its petals.

So, if I listen to a DVD that you produced and memorized a song on the DVD, does it mean that you own a piece of my brain where this song is stored? Do I have to pretend I don't know the song?

[FlyingAxe]

As someone seeking to change the status quo, I believe the onus is on you.

No, since the status quo is that I own my hard drive. If you want to tell me that you own it, since I have a copy of your book on it, you have to prove that one follows the other.

It's like saying: "I own the TV in your bedroom." Who has the burden of proof?

[TMark]

As someone who has been the victim of piracy. I feel prompted to try to enter a little sanity here. I work on the GoGoD database, which also feeds into John Fairbairn's books, because he is able to use the data to back up his narratives. John creates unique information about the historical matches in Go and, naturally, feels aggrieved if that information is appropriated by others for their profit and his loss. I help to create a unique database from a number of sources, adding my expertise and knowledge to edit games to go into the database (I also buy a number of books and magazines for this purpose). All that I do is known to the Nihon Ki-in, the Kansai Ki-in, the Hanguk Kiweon and the China Qi-Yuan and I have been doing this for the past 19 years, first as a hobby and for the past 6 years full-time.

So what happens if someone comes along and successfully steals my work? Everybody probably loses, because I stop, John Fairbairn stops, SmartGo in the US stops updating databases (I may gain more time to read books and listen to music, but that is an unforeseen byproduct). The general user finds that any database he/she can get has loads of errors, is missing all the material John and I add and bad money drives out the good. We persist because we love the game and the scumbags who steal our product don't; they love the money they think they can make. When there are no new updates being produced, they will move onto some other market they can taint. If the Go books market was big enough or the database market the same, there would be enough money to protect it, but at the moment there is not. What there is is a general copyright protection of books and databases which allows us to work with some measure of reassurance. Both John and I complain about the constant appeals for free information (I often have to act as a buffer zone so that John is not constantly bothered for free translation work) but the Internet generation feels that everything should be given for nothing and the people who work to provide it should obtain their recompense by advertising or some form of charity. Unfortunately, that does not work in a niche market of a niche market. For the moment, the books and the databases and the equipment and the lessons that you get have to be paid for. When there is a better system in place, please let me know. Until then, we need to work in the real world.

Best wishes.

[Javaness2]

I don't know if you're joking in what you write here, or not. If I write a book, and somebody comes along, and takes the same book and sells it as there own, they can do this as it is now their intellectual property. If I buy an apple, and a man comes by, takes it, and sells it to another man passing, he can do this as it was his physical property. You are saying that intellectual labour is different to physical labour. Frankly that sounds like a kind of derivative, ridiculous bar room philosophy.

is intellectual property different to physical property?

Yes, absolutely. It is like apples and oranges really.

Physical item, you create it, it is yours. In your possession.

Intellectual property is a lot more complicated. If somebody has developed an idea, but they tell you, if you file before them there is a good chance you will become owner of that idea. It is more complicated than that of course. It is viciously complicated. It is complicated because companies lives are staked on it. Not just small companies, but ones that pull many billions in profits each year. A very long time ago it used to be about protecting individuals. Each time Disney's IP is about to lapse, the length of protection on the copy right law is extended. It used to be about protecting an individuals idea for a few years so he had exclusive rights, but the Disney lawyers are very powerful.

I am not an IP lawyer, but I do work closely with them... I file many IPs with the gov't per year. There are a lot of shenanigans.

There are companies that exist that make no product. They go to technical conferences and submit IP based on the talks given there. Then they contact the author of the talks with an ultimatum: license idea from us or we sue. It is all to common.

[hyperpape]

is intellectual property different to physical property?

If I build a house, my children can live in it, pass it to their children, and on forever. Unless it is sold, my descendants will retain the exclusive right to its use for eternity. With few exceptions (including Mark Twain, I believe), no one thinks that intellectual property should work that way.

Not everybody thinks that land should work that way, either.

A good point, and it's not a crazy position. A sort of middle ground is the georgist position which (iirc) says that you can own land in perpetuity, but all taxes revenues should come from taxation on land.

But what's true for land in my original example is also true for more mundane physical goods.

[hyperpape]

Both John and I complain about the constant appeals for free information (I often have to act as a buffer zone so that John is not constantly bothered for free translation work) but the Internet generation feels that everything should be given for nothing and the people who work to provide it should obtain their recompense by advertising or some form of charity.

So you're paying for Kombilo, licensing the proprietary HTML format to use with your encyclopedia that people view in the web browsers that they pay for, and giving the Nihon Ki-in, et al. their cut for each game?

I support the decision of authors and database compilers to charge for their work as they see fit, and I'm currently importing a brand new legal copy of the most recent GoGoD onto my hard drive. I wouldn't ever think of redistributing that content because I want to support you.

But it sure seems like the free information crowd has done some cool things too.

[FlyingAxe]

The underlying assumption is that one would not be able to get paid for his work, unless he made it into government-protected monopoly.

But that is simply not true. Market provides many different modes of support. I already described the system of voluntary donations. Another example: there is the Groupon model, about which I just read here.

[Toge]

So you're paying for Kombilo, licensing the proprietary HTML format to use with your encyclopedia that people view in the web browsers that they pay for, and giving the Nihon Ki-in, et al. their cut for each game?

- The world is full of fantastic works. I don't know who built the house I live in, but it was a group of people. I'm not sure who provided this service for me to type my thoughts, but somebody did it. I think these things build gradually and iteratively throughout generations. The mind doesn't exist in aether, contrary to what many philosophers thought. No man is an island, but that doesn't stop somebody with dominant quality of mind of stamping their foot on the ground, building a fence and claiming "this is mine". They need not wonder how every flower inside their fence came to be. Foolish thoughts distract from building fences.

[hyperpape]

Flying Axe, your position seems to be that intellectual property rights are not only a bad idea/worthy of being limited, but absurd.

Now, suppose that I write a book, and keep it in my house. I allow others to see it on the condition that they sign a contract stating that they will not reproduce any portions of it, unless those portions are sufficiently small and/or meet other conditions ("fair use" under our current law).

If that contract is valid, then it doesn't really matter whether the book sits at my house or I give you copies--we can sign the same contract.

Now, one can say that the current copyright regime makes such a contract the default for books and other information. So for intellectual property to be absurd (as opposed to merely bad idea), such a contract must be invalid. That's a remarkable position, and quite contrary to your apparent libertarianism.

[FlyingAxe]

Flying Axe, your position seems to be that intellectual property rights are not only a bad idea/worthy of being limited, but absurd.

Now, suppose that I write a book, and keep it in my house. I allow others to see it on the condition that they sign a contract stating that they will not reproduce any portions of it, unless those portions are sufficiently small and/or meet other conditions ("fair use" under our current law).

If that contract is valid, then it doesn't really matter whether the book sits at my house or I give you copies--we can sign the same contract.

Now, one can say that the current copyright regime makes such a contract the default for books and other information. So for intellectual property to be absurd (as opposed to merely bad idea), such a contract must be invalid. That's a remarkable position, and quite contrary to your apparent libertarianism.

That's a good way to limit the first buyer's copying of the original work. But suppose I give the book as a present to someone who has never signed the contract? What is binding him or her from making copies? Suppose someone has broken the contract and made (illegally) some copies. Someone else made copies from those copies. The second person was not breaking any contracts. (Indeed, the first pirate, once he broke the contract once, was not breaking it anymore while making copies of the first copy.)

Lastly, imagine that I listen to a song on the DVD that I bought. The contract accompanying the sale of the DVD said that I may not make copies of the DVD's contents into any format and share them and that if I do, the DVD publisher owns those copies. So, if I memorized the song, does it mean that the publisher owns select circuits in my brain where the song information is stored? Do I have to forget the contents of the song, since remembering it (let alone singing it in the shower) would break the contract?

[hyperpape]

That's a good way to limit the first buyer's copying of the original work. But suppose I give the book as a present to someone who has never signed the contract? What is binding him or her from making copies? Suppose someone has broken the contract and made (illegally) some copies. Someone else made copies from those copies. The second person was not breaking any contracts. (Indeed, the first pirate, once he broke the contract once, was not breaking it anymore while making copies of the first copy.)

One can write a license/contract that stipulates the conditions under which the first buyer may dispose of the property. Whether that will hold up in court varies, afaik. Such a method is precisely how the GPL works.

Lastly, imagine that I listen to a song on the DVD that I bought. The contract accompanying the sale of the DVD said that I may not make copies of the DVD's contents into any format and share them and that if I do, the DVD publisher owns those copies. So, if I memorized the song, does it mean that the publisher owns select circuits in my brain where the song information is stored? Do I have to forget the contents of the song, since remembering it (let alone singing it in the shower) would break the contract?

Of course the "any format" is based on a sort of folk conception of what "copying the DVDs contents" means, one which doesn't include memories. The law would not support an effort to prosecute/sue individuals for memories, as opposed to digital/tape recordings, and no one would attempt to prosecute it. It could become an interesting issue if there's some sort of future device that records everything you see and hear.

does it mean that the publisher owns select circuits in my brain where the song information is stored?

You keep making this error, and it is a bit silly. If the law denies me the ability to do something with an MP3 on my hard drive, that is not saying the copyright owner "owns" my hard drive. That's just a sloppy confusion. Compare: only I own the household cleaners in my laundry room, even though I'd be legally prohibited from mixing them to produce chlorine gas that disperses into my neighbor's apartment.

[nagano]

I don't know if you're joking in what you write here, or not. If I write a book, and somebody comes along, and takes the same book and sells it as there own, they can do this as it is now their intellectual property. If I buy an apple, and a man comes by, takes it, and sells it to another man passing, he can do this as it was his physical property. You are saying that intellectual labour is different to physical labour. Frankly that sounds like a kind of derivative, ridiculous bar room philosophy.

It's not ridiculous at all. The difference is that physical property is scarce, but information is not. For instance, taking the apple from you would be stealing because it would deprive you of the apple. But someone copying the information contained in a book you wrote does not deprive you of the book.

[judicata]

If I build a house, my children can live in it, pass it to their children, and on forever. Unless it is sold, my descendants will retain the exclusive right to its use for eternity. With few exceptions (including Mark Twain, I believe), no one thinks that intellectual property should work that way.

Not everybody thinks that land should work that way, either.

A good point, and it's not a crazy position. A sort of middle ground is the georgist position which (iirc) says that you can own land in perpetuity, but all taxes revenues should come from taxation on land.

But what's true for land in my original example is also true for more mundane physical goods.

Ah, but land doesn't work this way! Look up "adverse possession."

Ok, to save the Wikipedia/Google search: If Bob uses land owned by George (for example, builds a house), and his use is "continuous, open, and notorious" for a certain period of time (often 25 years, depending on the jurisdiction), and George doesn't do anything to stop Bob, the land becomes Bob's.

[hyperpape]

I'm not sure whether that changes the issue, Judicata. Doesn't that just establish that in some cases, continued possession of tangible goods is not guaranteed? Whereas with copyright (in theory--since there are the Mickey Mouse laws), continued possession is not even possible.